Jump to content
NickDB8

China - NickDB8 [A] vs vmanAA738 [N]

Recommended Posts

gotta love policy debate. coulda been a sweet debate about food policy and liberalism but instead it's come down to theory on a word pic  :P

 

Anyway, great round to both of you. I'll try to give a decision in a bit 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote aff. And it really only comes down to the wording of the counterinterp because the 2ar doesn't go for the conditional ethics stuff and since the 2nr only goes for the PIC, if i reject the argument then I'm rejecting the team as well. 

 

I think if you wanted to use the term "may" to indicate optionality, then the counter interp should have been "counterplans may be only textually competitive". Obviously I know what you meant in the 1nr but if i were to decide the round based on what i think you mean rather than what you actually say then that would be a level of intervention that would be absurdly unfair to the aff

 

I also have a relatively high threshold for the 2nr clarification stuff. You had the whole block to explain the c/i and i don't feel comfortable voting on a clarification that only came out the neg's final speech of the round. I think the aff is right that 1ar clarification on a T violation would be questionable at best and i would rather use the ballot to encourage early explanations on interpretations so that we can have a nuanced theory debate in the latter part of the round than to let the neg get away with clarifying an interp in the 2nr, and that plus any risk that i don't buy the analysis on the clarification is enough to make me vote aff.

 

i feel rotten deciding a round on this. And just for transparency sake, I only went back to read the PIC parts since that's what the round came down to, so i can't give you the obligatory "you were really winning on x" as consolation, but I'm sure you definitely were. Even still this was a really awesome debate; it was fun to judge and to think about. So thanks to both of you

Edited by Nonegfiat
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote aff. And it really only comes down to the wording of the counterinterp because the 2ar doesn't go for the conditional ethics stuff and since the 2nr only goes for the PIC, if i reject the argument then I'm rejecting the team as well. 

 

I think if you wanted to use the term "may" to indicate optionality, then the counter interp should have been "counterplans may be only textually competitive". Obviously I know what you meant in the 1nr but if i were to decide the round based on what i think you mean rather than what you actually say then that would be a level of intervention that would be absurdly unfair to the aff

 

I also have a relatively high threshold for the 2nr clarification stuff. You had the whole block to explain the c/i and i don't feel comfortable voting on a clarification that only came out the neg's final speech of the round. I think the aff is right that 1ar clarification on a T violation would be questionable at best and i would rather use the ballot to encourage early explanations on interpretations so that we can have a nuanced theory debate in the latter part of the round than to let the neg get away with clarifying an interp in the 2nr, and that plus any risk that i don't buy the analysis on the clarification is enough to make me vote aff.

 

i feel rotten deciding a round on this. And just for transparency sake, I only went back to read the PIC parts since that's what the round came down to, so i can't give you the obligatory "you were really winning on x" as consolation, but I'm sure you definitely were. Even still this was a really awesome debate; it was fun to judge and to think about. So thanks to both of you

Thanks! I felt super... cheeky? going for 1NR grammar as an argument, but oh well. If you wouldn't mind, would you check the 2AC, and give me feedback on what I could do better on the off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm confused about this decision on a couple of levels: 

 

1) if i meet the theory interp, then under reasonability why do I need to win a counterinterp?

 

2) i don't understand based on the 2AR what the double turn was?

 

3) why wasn't reasonability triggered given that it was the only judgement paradigm extended/left on T and theory debates?

 

4) why does the 2AR get new arguments or new explanation/clarification if the 2NR doesn't get new arguments/clarification/explanation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote aff. And it really only comes down to the wording of the counterinterp because the 2ar doesn't go for the conditional ethics stuff and since the 2nr only goes for the PIC, if i reject the argument then I'm rejecting the team as well. 

 

I think if you wanted to use the term "may" to indicate optionality, then the counter interp should have been "counterplans may be only textually competitive". Obviously I know what you meant in the 1nr but if i were to decide the round based on what i think you mean rather than what you actually say then that would be a level of intervention that would be absurdly unfair to the aff

 

I also have a relatively high threshold for the 2nr clarification stuff. You had the whole block to explain the c/i and i don't feel comfortable voting on a clarification that only came out the neg's final speech of the round. I think the aff is right that 1ar clarification on a T violation would be questionable at best and i would rather use the ballot to encourage early explanations on interpretations so that we can have a nuanced theory debate in the latter part of the round than to let the neg get away with clarifying an interp in the 2nr, and that plus any risk that i don't buy the analysis on the clarification is enough to make me vote aff.

 

i feel rotten deciding a round on this. And just for transparency sake, I only went back to read the PIC parts since that's what the round came down to, so i can't give you the obligatory "you were really winning on x" as consolation, but I'm sure you definitely were. Even still this was a really awesome debate; it was fun to judge and to think about. So thanks to both of you

I agree with everything Ben said, and I also vote aff. I really, really hate discourse PICs. I think they're shit and a waste of time and energy, and honestly detract from substance and real debate. That being said, I tried to be as objective as I could here, and really it came down to the theoretical stuff, mainly the Counterinterp. I agree with been on the whole may/must distinction, with that being said I do have a lower threshold for judge intervention when it comes to semantics, i.e: I'm not gonna vote on a plan flaw because the plan text is grammatically incorrect (provided that the plan text is still coherent). In the end, it more came down to the fact that coming out of the block you have so little offense on the theory shell, and then after the 2NR I'm just like holy shit dude. Ben covered all that for me, so I won't go into it here.

 

Also I personally think you could've won on the Liberalism K. I really like the K and feel like although the 2AC had a bit of offense, you could've dealt with it without too much effort and had you carried that into the 2NR instead of the PIC it could've been a win.

 

Nick, I like the 1AC, I really do. But you gotta get better inherency. Other than that, good job. Good aff. Work on it.

 

As for the off, you could've done waaaaay better on the K just because I feel like you either didnt get it or intentionally misframed it. It's a K of liberalism and global governance, think of it as an Alex Jones K if you will, "THE GLOBALISTS ARE GONNA GET US!" If you can just argue Liberalism good at this point you win. For this reason, I didn't really weigh your cap evidence too much, simply because I feel like it didn't really apply. The affirmative biopower arg is good, I like it. Keep that. The perm was a bit shaky, it could've worked but you need specific stuff about how combating liberalism from within the system is good.

 

Also don't read the damn Strickland evidence. Just please do not. Refrain dude.

 

On the PIC, I like the perm arg, I'm totally gonna steal that card. PICs Bad shell was good.

 

Not much to say on the T debate. Everyone has T - QPQ blocked. You're both fine.

 

Overall, the spots where I found your dealing with the off lacking were 1 - the K, and 2 - you could've done waaaaaay more analysis in the 1AR, you dig?

 

In the end, I vote aff just because I don't have enough neg offense in the 2NR and 2AR to do anything but that. Vinay, I almost felt like you were playing defense in the block which you should not be doing, you know? You gotta be a bit more aggressive.

 

Any questions from either of you feel free! Good round!

 

 

Edit - clarified a thing or two

Edited by AQuackDebater
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm confused about this decision on a couple of levels: 

 

1) if i meet the theory interp, then under reasonability why do I need to win a counterinterp?

 

2) i don't understand based on the 2AR what the double turn was?

 

3) why wasn't reasonability triggered given that it was the only judgement paradigm extended/left on T and theory debates?

 

4) why does the 2AR get new arguments or new explanation/clarification if the 2NR doesn't get new arguments/clarification/explanation?

 

1) you don't need to win a c/i. it's just a question of whether you resolve offense that you put on the flow

 

2) after the 1ar i'm flowing the standards on the c/i as offense on the interp which you meet

 

3) i don't see where you talk about reasonability on the PIC theory before the 2NR. But feel free to direct me to where you do if i'm wrong about that

 

4) i don't think anything in the 2ar was all that new. But do I think the analysis of the 2NR is substantially different from the interp that we get coming out of the 1ar

 

but at the end of the day, feel free to not give any weight to my decision. I'm definitely not a debate expert, so if you're not buying what i'm saying then you are 100% justified in that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! I felt super... cheeky? going for 1NR grammar as an argument, but oh well. If you wouldn't mind, would you check the 2AC, and give me feedback on what I could do better on the off?

 

Yeah sure, I'll take a look at that later tonight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) you don't need to win a c/i. it's just a question of whether you resolve offense that you put on the flow

 

2) after the 1ar i'm flowing the standards on the c/i as offense on the interp which you meet

 

3) i don't see where you talk about reasonability on the PIC theory before the 2NR. But feel free to direct me to where you do if i'm wrong about that

i think my question was more there was never competing interps read on PIC theory at any point in the debate- like i cross-applied reasonability from topicality because that's what the 1AR extended and i didn't extend competing interps after the block--hence my confusion why reasonability wasn't triggered?

4) i don't think anything in the 2ar was all that new. But do I think the analysis of the 2NR is substantially different from the interp that we get coming out of the 1ar

i disagree here but okay

but at the end of the day, feel free to not give any weight to my decision. I'm definitely not a debate expert, so if you're not buying what i'm saying then you are 100% justified in that

i'm not an expert either- i'm merely just trying to understand the round for my own knowledge and to learn from this- i hope this is constructive and not me being an ass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I'm not gonna lie, I didn't know what that K was, nor did I have frontlines, or even a general A2 file, for it. Was the 2AC constructed in an okay-ish manner, given I didn't understand the K nor have answers to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so i answered theory in the block the way i did because I thought the 2AC theory arguments were short and incomplete- hence I answered the 2AC arguments in the same manner that they were read in- short and not fully developed--i'm confused why that is not acceptable---and also why the 2NR doesn't get to develop their offense when the 1AR does get to develop their offense and read new arguments- it seems to be a double standard given that the initial time theory was read (the 2AC) it's not a complete argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not an expert either- i'm merely just trying to understand the round for my own knowledge and to learn from this- i hope this is constructive and not me being an ass

 

nah you're fine. 

 

re: the reasonability stuff, yeah that was all that was extended, but i dont know what reasonability means in the context of the theory debate. We're not weighing the interp vs the counterinterp, so i dont think there was any reason for Nick to extend competing interps

 

re: blippy theory in the 2ac, i dont think it's unacceptable for you to answer theory the way you did. And going for theory in the 2nr/2ar you're obviously allowed to elaborate. But the clarification that you did constituted what i think is a substantial enough shift from the way it looked in the 1ar for me to see it as new, especially when it was definitely resolvable in the 1nr with better wording on your interp 

 

so like, i can be persuaded that it's necessary to use the 2nr to explain more fully, say, a T violation, that you might have given only 2 minutes to in the block. But I am less easily persuaded that it's okay to use the 2nr to shift the meaning of an interp that you should have done a better job with the first time around.  And i don't mean you needed that much more explanation. again, the 2ac theory was blippy, which you're right about. I just mean you should have worded your interp better or included one line of clarification. That would have been enough

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I'm not gonna lie, I didn't know what that K was, nor did I have frontlines, or even a general A2 file, for it. Was the 2AC constructed in an okay-ish manner, given I didn't understand the K nor have answers to it?

You did alright, a lot better than I'd have done if I had no idea wtf I was dealing with. I feel like the strongest arg you made was the perm, even though it was generic as hell, I feel like CtP is always a very convincing arg, for perms as well as FW.

Just look into it. I went into what the K was (to my understanding) above. It's just a K of globalization, so to speak.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote neg on the PIC. It's total BS what the 1AR tried to do on the theory. You knew what his interp meant. Why would he read an interp he violates? Look at the standards on the counterintep. Not one of them says a thing about functional competition being bad. In fact, look at the negation theory standard. It says "anything outside the aff is fair game". Incredibly unstrategic and stupid on the 1AR's part to drop the rest of the PIC because you thought you had some type of "gotcha" moment. How in the world do you expect anyone to flow "allows more neg ground" as offense against textual and functional competition but in favor of limiting counterplans to exclusively textual competition??? WHAT?? Well, I'll drop you for it. Theory debates like these are bad for the activity and the 1AR should have made the decision to actually engage the argument. You have no defense against the PIC itself in the 2AR, only on this BS theory. So that's gonna be a neg ballot.

 

So I guess it's a 2-1 for the aff?

Edited by iheartzizek
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote neg on the PIC. It's total BS what the 1AR tried to do on the theory. You knew what his interp meant. Why would he read an interp he violates? Look at the standards on the counterintep. Not one of them says a thing about functional competition being bad. In fact, look at the negation theory standard. It says "anything outside the aff is fair game". Incredibly unstrategic and stupid on the 1AR's part to drop the rest of the PIC because you thought you had some type of "gotcha" moment. How in the world do you expect anyone to flow "allows more neg ground" as offense against textual and functional competition but in favor of limiting counterplans to exclusively textual competition??? WHAT?? Well, I'll drop you for it. Theory debates like these are bad for the activity and the 1AR should have made the decision to actually engage the argument. You have no defense against the PIC itself in the 2AR, only on this BS theory. So that's gonna be a neg ballot.

 

So I guess it's a 2-1 for the aff?

Yee

I agree with all of what Kyle said, for me it's just A - as an LDer I have a much higher tolerance for crazy Theory debates, and I find them kinda fun, and B - Like I said, block was a bit messy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote neg on the PIC. It's total BS what the 1AR tried to do on the theory.

 

Incredibly unstrategic and stupid on the 1AR's part to drop the rest of the PIC because you thought you had some type of "gotcha" moment.

 

Theory debates like these are bad for the activity and the 1AR should have made the decision to actually engage the argument. You have no defense against the PIC itself in the 2AR, only on this BS theory.

Seriously, chill out. vDebates are meant to be a fun way to test new arguments, there's no reason to insult or yell at anyone. Even if you don't like theory debates, there's no reason to be a dick.

 

Also people read interps they don't meet for the same reason double-turns and plan flaws exist. It's not an illegitimate argument

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also people read interps they don't meet for the same reason double-turns and plan flaws exist. It's not an illegitimate argument

Yeah like in LD thats pretty common I;ve won rounds of off double turning myself and kicking out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote neg on the PIC. It's total BS what the 1AR tried to do on the theory. You knew what his interp meant. Why would he read an interp he violates? Look at the standards on the counterintep. Not one of them says a thing about functional competition being bad. In fact, look at the negation theory standard. It says "anything outside the aff is fair game". Incredibly unstrategic and stupid on the 1AR's part to drop the rest of the PIC because you thought you had some type of "gotcha" moment. How in the world do you expect anyone to flow "allows more neg ground" as offense against textual and functional competition but in favor of limiting counterplans to exclusively textual competition??? WHAT?? Well, I'll drop you for it. Theory debates like these are bad for the activity and the 1AR should have made the decision to actually engage the argument. You have no defense against the PIC itself in the 2AR, only on this BS theory. So that's gonna be a neg ballot.

 

So I guess it's a 2-1 for the aff?

 

if i buy his standards on the counterinterp, which go conceded, then functional competition forces a tradeoff from the grammatical and discursive benefits that we get from counterplans that only compete textually. No one runs a counterplan that competes functionally and textually and then goes on to garner offense from the textual competition. Even if the neg ground standard doesn't make sense, that bit of offense i outlined above is enough for me to vote aff when there's nothing to weigh it against

 

i agree with the spirit of what you're saying, which is why i said i feel rotten voting on this theory, but debates a game my dude. tech over truth. sometimes people win the game in sneaky ways

 

also yeah, like PailAmbrose said, you don't gotta unload on the 1ar like that. we're all here for fun. Let's all just chill out

Edited by Nonegfiat
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...